First round is for acceptance onlyNo adding new arguments in later rounds No word games. No playing with semantics. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean. A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.

Ever since Darwin came up with the idea that spieces evolved, science has been trying to prove him wrong. Over 100 years later and thousands of experiments later, science has failed to prove Darwin wrong.

Everything they tried actually confirms evolution as a fact.

With DNA alone. you can take any two spieces that exist and trace them back to the common ancestor they evolved from.

The fossile record only confirms the DNA evidence. Using several forms of radiometric dating that all converge on the same results, every fossile ever found fits into the tree of evolution exactly where it would be expected to fit.

All it would take to disprove evolution, would be to find just one fossile that didn't belong where the theory says it should go.

;

It's alo important to realize that a scientific theory is not the same as non-scientific theory. When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Really, everything they tried has confirmed evolution? What is "everything," and who is "they?" Surely you don't mean creationist scientists.

Homologous genes are poor evidence of common ancestry. It has been demonstrated that homologous structures are in many cases not derived from homologous genes (http://creation.com...). Homology in general is just as much evidence for a common designer as it is for a common ancestor, so in both cases, homology is a weak proof.

The fossil record confirms genetic homology? How so? You mention fossils and radiometric dating. I will address fossils first and then radiometric dating. Fossils are poor evidence for evolution because stasis is revealed for many body plans. But you seem to be under the erroneous impression that the geologic column exists. It does not (http://creation.com...). Regardless, the precession of fossils, from the Cambrian and upwards, is easily demonstrated to be a good evidence for the Flood, even more so than for the "tree of evolution." Besides this, many evolutionists have rejected the idea of the tree of life, so your argument is moot. "Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change (Graham, Lawton. "Why Darwin was Wrong About the Tree of Life" New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692. 21 January 2009). You say "All it would take to disprove evolution, would be to find just one fossile that didn't belong where the theory says it should go." There have been many fossils found which do not fit into the "theory," and many fossils which don't "belong where the theory says it should go." Sorry you are unaware of these; it's not something you're likely to here in a secular biology class. But many times when a fossil is found to not match preconceived ideas of where it "should have been," they will simply change the time-period when the organism existed, rendering this theoretical construct untenable (http://creation.com...). There are many "out of sequence fossils" to cite, but here are just a few which should not have existed alongside dinosaurs: ducks (Cretaceous Duck Ruffles Feathers, BBC news, www.bbc.co.uk, 20 January 2005.), squirrels (Mesozoic Squirrel, Nature 444:889"893, 2006.), platypus (Swimming with Dinos, www.museumvictoria.com.au, 24 January 2008.) beaver-like creatures (Early Aquatic Mammal, Science 311 (5764): 1068, 24 February 2006.) and badger-like creatures (Dinosaur-eating mammal discovered in China, www. nhm.ac.uk,14 January 2005.). You can read more about the problems with the fossil record here (http://creation.com...).

Radiometric dating relies on three assumptions: known starting conditions, no contamination and steady decay rate. To assume known starting conditions is wishful thinking of a most delusional caliber. Too many factors are unknown. To assume no contamination, or even to assume to know how much contamination has taken place is just as ridiculous. The Flood, by the way, would have caused massive amounts of contamination in rocks around the globe as water is the best medium for the transfer of radioactive elements in rocks. The later assumption, decay rate, has been demonstrably shown not to be a geo-historical constant (http://creation.com...). Also, radiometric dates assigned to a given strata or rock are very selective; conflicting dates appear all the time and yet radiometric dating is still supported at solid evidence (http://creation.com...).

Thanks for the lesson on what a theory is. I understand that the colloquial usage of the word does not always correspond to the definition within the framework of the scientific method. I would say though, that macro-evolution, or neo-Darwinian evolution, would not fall under this definition.

My opponent said "Really, everything they tried has confirmed evolution? What is "everything," and who is "they?" Surely you don't mean creationist scientists."

I'd like to clarify. By "everything", I mean, every scientific experiment that has to do with evolution. By "they" I mean all qualified scientists in the field of biology, chemistry, geology and other branches of science that have to do with evolution.

My opponent is right, I really don't mean "creationist scientists", because there is no such thing. A scientist deals with the natural world, not the super-natural. A "creationist scientists" deals with pseudo-science which is not science at all.

I'd like to point out that everything my opponent has said against evolution has come from a creationist website, which does not deal with anything scientific.Under "What they believe", they admit:PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In other words. Anything scientific is SECONDARY to what they believe. Believing something doesn't make it true. Yet, they will not allow scientific evidence to refute what "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" claims.

The best possible way to get to the truth is through the scientific method, not pseudo-science or "the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

There is not enough room here to post the overwhelming mountains of scientific evidence available that proves evolution, but I'll put some up that has something to do with my opponent's objections to evolution.

My opponent claims "Homologous genes are poor evidence of common ancestry"According to scientists, "there are two basic evolutionary explanations for similarities: homology and analogy. Are these genes homologous (i.e., were they passed down from the common ancestor of all these different organisms) or analogous (i.e., did they all evolve independently through convergent evolution)? Based on the observations that all of these gene versions are remarkably similar in sequence, have related functions, and are incredibly widespread (animals all across the tree of life have them), scientists have concluded that they must be homologous and must have been inherited from the common ancestor of all these animals."http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

As far as radiometric dating is concerned, My opponent doesn't know what he is talking about.

Geologists use radiometric dating to estimate how long ago rocks formed, and to infer the ages of fossils contained within those rocks.http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

"The flood" my opponent is talking about that supposedly contaminates rocks never happened.

The flood story does not explain the present geographic distribution of species, e.g., how marsupials wound up in Australia, and only in Australia.

A single worldwide deluge cannot explain the distribution of fossils in the fossil record:

Radiometric dating, geological layering (both fossils and otherwise), major extinction events, corrosion, and mountain range formation all line up to show the same age. Any argument that attacks a single dating method has to address why all of them show the same thing.

Even if the dating method is not accepted as accurate (i.e. you don't believe a fossil is 250 million years old), every dating method shows the same relative difference. So to be successful, even an argument that attacks every dating method would have to show why they're all out by the same amount, to account for the agreement over the relative age.

Given the distribution of fossils, even if fossilization were accelerated under high-pressure water, which it is not, there have still been several times when almost all life has been wiped out (we're talking 50-75% of all species going extinct, not 50-75% of all individual animals dying). No apologist argument addresses all five major extinction events.

What about the complex ecosystems that would have been destroyed from the flood? All it would have taken is one animal dying and then the other couldn't reproduce and would die, and the animals that require that species alive for any number of reasons would have died, and subsequently would have killed off an entire ecosystem or more. A birth defect would have a remarkable chance of occurring which could have caused an outcome such as this.

Considering that the waters from around the world would have mixed, the content of salt would have been altered resulting in the sea life being killed worldwide.

Didn't you say no new arguments in later rounds? I would assume the final round would simply be for rebuttals and defense of claims. I wonder why you did not address my point about homologous structures not being derived from homologous genes in many cases? You also did not answer my question about how the fossil record is supposed to vindicate genetic homology. There are too many things you did not address so I wont list them all, I think they will be obvious to the prospective reader.

My opponent erroneously claims that he does not include creationists in his definition of scientists because they deal with "pseudo-science." What a scientist believes about God is irrelevant to the science he preforms. Science does come second to faith as any honest evolutionist would tell you. Consider the following quote from Richard Lewontin, "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." There is bias on both sides, but this does not change the outcome of operational science within the framework of the scientific method. There are hundreds of scientists, many who have a Ph.D., who believe in Genesis and yet are wonderful scientists (http://creation.com...). I do not discredit evolutionists for their materialism/naturalism, but I consider their claims within the framework of the scientific method.

To say there is "mountains of evidence" and then not provide it, is really quite silly. Concerning your homologous genes you say, "Based on the observations that all of these gene versions are remarkably similar in sequence, have related functions, and are incredibly widespread (animals all across the tree of life have them), scientists have concluded that they must be homologous and must have been inherited from the common ancestor of all these animals." So evolution is assumed at the outset? And since that is the theory they are running with, all evidence must support it? Homology of any kind among organisms is only proof for evolution within the framework of the evolutionary model. Within the biblical creation model, homology supports a common designer. Similarity among animals is a bad argument. What about similarities among placental mammals and marsupials? Is this merely convergent evolution? African moles look just like Australian moles, yet since one is marsupial and the other placental, they are unrelated. How does the conclusion of the evidence of homology become "all organisms must have had a common ancestor?" Incredible.

Nice rebuttal to my claims about radiometric dating, "My opponent doesn't know what he is talking about." Radiometric dating is not used to date rocks, it is used to measure the ratio of radioactive isotopes within a given rock sample. This precise measurement is then used to infer an age based on the assumptions I mentioned. This is the problem. Radiometric dates are in no way unanimous and without conflict (http://creation.com...).

My opponent says the Flood has never happened. A bold assertion indeed. He first says the "flood story" does not explain the present geographic dirstribution of species, but then goes on to say that it cannot. I wonder if my opponent has ever checked out the Flood models of, say, Dr. John Baumgardner. My opponent is under the false pretense that all radiometric dating is in agreement, here's one example of the failure of U-Th-Pb dating at Koongarra, Australia (http://creation.com...).

You say, "What about the complex ecosystems that would have been destroyed from the flood?" Animals are amazingly versatile. All organisms have been given an amazingly versatile genome which allows animals to adapt to there environments. Ecosystems were destroyed, but new ones were made, and animals adapted. Some adapted better than others and thus survived longer, such as crocodiles, while some may have died out very early. You should study creationist Flood models before you ask questions like this. It is like me saying, "how would ocean fossils form, in the evolution model, if we don't see them forming today?"

Here are some answers, if you are interested, to your claim about the Flood in relation to the mixing of salt and freshwater (http://creation.com...)

Your claim about the harm of denying evolution is ludicrous, I can claim more deaths by citing the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot alone, all of whom were heavily influenced by evolution.

You say, "I'm sorry, but my opponent's arguments are not credible, scientific or even worth considering." Nice cop-out. Clearly your definitions of credible and scientific are very subjective. Thanks for your time.

You clearly stated to me you did not want to debate "Babies are born Atheist". I have moved on from that subject. I have an interest in evolution and thought this debate would be about the facts and evidence. Your resolution, title of your debate was misleading. All I saw was non-cited statements of facts that when asked you did not back up. But on a very serious note. I am interested in reading how mineralized bone can be a source of proof for organic genes, please just cite it in comments or send it to me in PM.

@nonprophet How does the fossil record, which is mineralized bone ei.. no DNA, is proof for homologous genes which is organic and in the DNA?? Can you cite the source for that? I think it would be a killer read.

Benshapiro gave me a nice revenge vote for losing to me.
His reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't address his point about homologous structures not being derived from homologous genes in many cases despite having the chance.

Well what do you call:
My opponent claims "Homologous genes are poor evidence of common ancestry"
According to scientists, "there are two basic evolutionary explanations for similarities: homology and analogy. Are these genes homologous (i.e., were they passed down from the common ancestor of all these different organisms) or analogous (i.e., did they all evolve independently through convergent evolution)? Based on the observations that all of these gene versions are remarkably similar in sequence, have related functions, and are incredibly widespread (animals all across the tree of life have them), scientists have concluded that they must be homologous and must have been inherited from the common ancestor of all these animals."

@derplington You don't need to have seen something to call it a fact. It's a fact that it takes the former planet Pluto 248 years to orbit the sun, but nobody has ever seen it happen, since we haven't even known that Pluto existed for that long.

You can't say it is a scientific fact unless it is proven. Science states it must have visible proof before it is a fact. You simply believe it is a fact for you have not actually seen it happen. The changing of an animal species is called adaption. Evolution is the changing from one species to another, which we have never witnessed. This is just like how a religious person believes that their God created everything, although they have had no visible proof. If I could vote (I don't have a phone to prove my identity) I would choose creationtruth. Don't bother arguing back, for I am too lazy to reply.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was more evidence based, Con's counters were non convincing, as Con's argument contained a lot of fallacies (Arguments From Ignorance) where Con's sources were also publishing arguments from ignorance. Thus Pro's sources were more honest and reliable.

Reasons for voting decision: ...both seemed to not be in punching-mode, both could have used more commas. Creation "science" starts with the "answers" and then, tries to prove them. Science, just goes to see what is there, puts all the data together and then, sees the answers. This way of acquiring scientific data has been going on a long time. So, most of it has nothing to do with money. It is just, plain, data. Example: the Earth goes around the Sun - not vice versa...just plain data

Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not cite references for the statements he made even after Con asked for such. I would have liked to have seen how the fossil record (which is mineralized bone, no dna) is proof for homologous genes which is organic.